A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 13 Mar 2010 13:37 On Mar 13, 1:34 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Mar 13, 1:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 13, 1:28 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 13, 3:30 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > If they are not directly across from each other you are making > > > > assumptions about the speed of light carrying the signal. If you use > > > > two clocks you made assumptions about the speed of light when you > > > > synchronized the two clocks. > > > > > _____________________________ > > > > When solving problems in SR or LET, you don't have to assume the speed of > > > > light is constant. You know it is. > > > > In response to both you and Inertial, mpc755 wrote, "The clock which > > > ticks the fastest is most at rest with respect to the aether." So we > > > were not discussing SR. And since he thinks he can detect the ether > > > frame we are not discussing LET either. > > > I did not say the aether frame can be detected, what I wrote and what > > you quote above stands on its own. > > > The aether is most at rest with respect to the clock which ticks the > > fastest.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Then all you would need to do is determine which clock is ticking > fastest and you have found the ether frame. Most people would > consider that detecting the ether. How do you know there isn't a clock somewhere else ticking faster?
From: Bruce Richmond on 13 Mar 2010 14:52 On Mar 13, 1:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 13, 1:34 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 1:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 13, 1:28 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 13, 3:30 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > If they are not directly across from each other you are making > > > > > assumptions about the speed of light carrying the signal. If you use > > > > > two clocks you made assumptions about the speed of light when you > > > > > synchronized the two clocks. > > > > > > _____________________________ > > > > > When solving problems in SR or LET, you don't have to assume the speed of > > > > > light is constant. You know it is. > > > > > In response to both you and Inertial, mpc755 wrote, "The clock which > > > > ticks the fastest is most at rest with respect to the aether." So we > > > > were not discussing SR. And since he thinks he can detect the ether > > > > frame we are not discussing LET either. > > > > I did not say the aether frame can be detected, what I wrote and what > > > you quote above stands on its own. > > > > The aether is most at rest with respect to the clock which ticks the > > > fastest.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Then all you would need to do is determine which clock is ticking > > fastest and you have found the ether frame. Most people would > > consider that detecting the ether. > > How do you know there isn't a clock somewhere else ticking faster?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There could be. Problem is, how do you measure it? LET says that clocks at rest in the ether tick the fastest, but due to distortions and how things are measured they will be measured to tick slower than the clocks doing the measuring. Would you be interested in an explaination of how the traveling twin ends up with less elapsed time on his clock *without his clock slowing down*?
From: mpc755 on 13 Mar 2010 15:33 On Mar 13, 2:52 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Mar 13, 1:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 13, 1:34 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 13, 1:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 13, 1:28 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 13, 3:30 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > If they are not directly across from each other you are making > > > > > > assumptions about the speed of light carrying the signal. If you use > > > > > > two clocks you made assumptions about the speed of light when you > > > > > > synchronized the two clocks. > > > > > > > _____________________________ > > > > > > When solving problems in SR or LET, you don't have to assume the speed of > > > > > > light is constant. You know it is. > > > > > > In response to both you and Inertial, mpc755 wrote, "The clock which > > > > > ticks the fastest is most at rest with respect to the aether." So we > > > > > were not discussing SR. And since he thinks he can detect the ether > > > > > frame we are not discussing LET either. > > > > > I did not say the aether frame can be detected, what I wrote and what > > > > you quote above stands on its own. > > > > > The aether is most at rest with respect to the clock which ticks the > > > > fastest.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Then all you would need to do is determine which clock is ticking > > > fastest and you have found the ether frame. Most people would > > > consider that detecting the ether. > > > How do you know there isn't a clock somewhere else ticking faster?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > There could be. Problem is, how do you measure it? LET says that > clocks at rest in the ether tick the fastest, but due to distortions > and how things are measured they will be measured to tick slower than > the clocks doing the measuring. > And that is why LET is incomplete. In AD, the clock on the train will be measured to be ticking slower than the clock on the embankment by both the Observer on the train and the Observer on the embankment. > Would you be interested in an explaination of how the traveling twin > ends up with less elapsed time on his clock *without his clock slowing > down*? Time is a concept. Would you be interested in understanding what is physically occurring in nature for the traveling twins clock to physically tick slower? The traveling twins clock ticks slower because it is under a greater amount of aether pressure than the clock which remains on the Earth. This additional aether pressure the traveling clock is under causes the traveling clock to physically tick slower.
From: ben6993 on 13 Mar 2010 16:24 On Mar 13, 8:25 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> wrote: <snip> > In SR, > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif > where beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > See the last sentence of > § 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a > Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation > Relatively to the Former Understanding a translation of Einstein's paper is quite a lot beyond me, at the moment, as you no doubt knew from my previous posts. However, the formula you are pointing at does not obviously give L'=2 metres (whereas I claimed L' = 0.5 metres using the standard Lorentz contraction of length). It boils down to L' = 2(1- 0.866ct) as far as I can make out, and this would only go on to produce 2 metres if t=0, and I cannot assume that t=0. Two of the four transformations seem to cross-refer the measurements of time and length, and you need to consider and work these transformations together, I think. A few lines later on it is written that "the X dimension appears shortened in the ratio 1 : sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), i.e. the greater the value of v, the greater the shortening." He can't have changed his mind within a couple of lines on the same page. A relativity website at Stamford is also content to assert that: "Each observer will see the meter stick of the other as shorter than their own, by the same factor gamma (- defined above). This is called length contraction". http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html I am away now for a week.
From: BURT on 13 Mar 2010 17:50
On Mar 12, 10:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 12, 11:39 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 5:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 12, 8:17 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 12, 5:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 12, 7:23 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 6:35 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 7 Mar, 02:51, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > >news:651a713d-7ae4-4048-bafb-f1b3219ee4fc(a)v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > On 6 Mar, 12:47, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > This should make perfect sense to you. If a clock is running 2% > > > > > > > > >> > slower, then it is running 2% slower regardless of distance. But if, > > > > > > > > >> > as a result of running 2% slower, it falls behind 6 minutes after > > > > > > > > >> > running a certain amount of time, then it will fall behind 12 minutes > > > > > > > > >> > after running for twice as long. > > > > > > > > > >> Agreed. > > > > > > > > > >> The question now is, if we agree that both clocks suffer time dilation > > > > > > > > >> in this way, then when they return to the start point, how do they > > > > > > > > >> each reconcile the fact that (after accounting for the effects of > > > > > > > > >> acceleration) it ought to be the other clock which is slow, when in > > > > > > > > >> fact one clock (the one that went furthest from the start point) will > > > > > > > > >> be slower than the other? And a third clock, left at the start point, > > > > > > > > >> will be running ahead of both? > > > > > > > > > >> _________________________ > > > > > > > > >> They know that the operations were not symmetric. Only one clock remained > > > > > > > > >> in > > > > > > > > >> the same inertial reference frame throughout. The other two clocks spent > > > > > > > > >> different amounts of time in at least 3 different inertial reference > > > > > > > > >> frames. > > > > > > > > >> Everybody can see this is true, and so nobody expects that the clocks > > > > > > > > >> will > > > > > > > > >> remain synchronised. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but the important question here is whether they agree *after* the > > > > > > > > > effects of acceleration are taken into account. I mean, if we said > > > > > > > > > that each travelling clock slows by 2% when moving away from the start > > > > > > > > > point at a certain speed, then by rights both travelling clocks should > > > > > > > > > slow equally. Yes? > > > > > > > > > As I understand your thought experiment, no. > > > > > > > > > In SR, time dilation is a function of relative speed and the time for which > > > > > > > > they are moving at the speed. It is not a function of accleration. > > > > > > > > > A doesn't move. B moves at speed v for time t, and its clock will read x > > > > > > > > behind A. C moves at speed v for time 2t, and its clock will read 2x behind > > > > > > > > A. > > > > > > > > The question is this. We'll deal with only the outbound trip (in other > > > > > > > words, the clocks are on the move, but time 't' has not yet elapsed, > > > > > > > so there has been no further acceleration). I agree with your answer > > > > > > > above, as it concerns A's frame. > > > > > > > > The question is, from the frame of B, what will the slowdown be on > > > > > > > clock C, *after* having accounted for the increased distances between > > > > > > > them (i.e. having accounted for the increased propagation delays). It > > > > > > > seems to me that the natural answer is to say "4%".- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > The clocks change when accelerating and decelerating in space. Time > > > > > > decelerates and accelerates when there is a change in speed in space. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > Due to the change in the pressure associated with the aether.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > In my model Aether flows over flowing energy and field without any > > > > pressure. And time flows nowhere else that is empty but only over > > > > particle and field. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > In AD, the pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive > > > objects is gravity. The faster a clock moves with respect to the > > > aether the greater the pressure associated with the aether on the > > > clock the slower the clock ticks. > > > > An atomic clock 'ticks' based upon the aether pressure it exists in. > > > The speed of a GPS satellite with respect to the aether causes it to > > > displace more aether and for that aether to exert more pressure on the > > > clock in the GPS satellite than the aether pressure associated with a > > > clock at rest with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite > > > clock to "result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day". The aether pressure > > > associated with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure > > > on the GPS satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth > > > "causing the GPS clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day". The > > > aether pressure associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite > > > moves in the aether and the aether pressure associated with the aether > > > displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS satellites tick > > > approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground." > > > (quoted text fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS).-Hidequoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > MPC is your aether pressure accross the extension of particle's and > > light's fields equal in strength of gravity? Do they experience "even > > gravity" over their whole forms while falling in a "spread out" > > different tidal gravity strengths? > > We need to distinguish between momentum, and acceleration and gravity. > A body moving with constant momentum with respect to the aether has > the aether pressure applied equally to each and every nuclei which is > the matter which is the body. > > When a body is accelerating or the body is under the influence of > gravity the pressure associated with the aether is not applied equally > to each and every part of the nuclei which is the matter which is the > body. > > > This must necessarily be true otherwise how would things know which > > speed to fall at as the whole forms they are? If they are in more than > > one strength of gravity afterall? There is only one strength that > > counts for matter and light and is the strength of gravity at their > > centers. > > The reason all objects fall at 32ft/sec^2 in a vacuum near the surface > of the Earth is the pressure associated with the aether displaced by > the Earth is greater 'on top' of each and every nuclei which is the > matter which is the body pushing the body towards the Earth. As the > body is being pushed by the aether pressure towards the Earth more > aether is continually 'on top' of the body pushing the body towards > the Earth and so on. This is why objects accelerate as the 'fall' > towards the Earth. > > > What about the aether gives the pressure? Can you define the different > > strengths of gravity with one aether pressure spreading out into the > > distance from mather? How does aether speed up without its time nature > > going faster instead of slower? > > The aether is not at rest when displaced. We know this because light > reaches us from where Jupiter was in its orbit (i.e. Jupiter does not > leave a void in its wake). Aether pressure abides by the inverse > square law. > > I stay away from describing the aether as 'speeding up'. I prefer to > discuss the state of the aether as its state of displacement and its > state of at rest with respect to the matter which displaces the > aether. If you must use the state of rest of aether and then you use state of aether in motion then for both of those to be true the aether necessarily must speed up. I challenge your assumption that the Aether is everything. This is not true. Energy and space also play a role in physics. Aether is only part of whole formsaof matter and light in physics. Togetherness is Unification not the sameness of everything. Mitch Raemsch > > > > Mitch Raemsch; The beginning of center based physics in gravity theory- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |